Wednesday, January 23, 2013

In order for clarity to emerge on
the debt ceiling debate, three false claims must be addressed, say David
Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, both former members of the Reagan and Bush senior
administrations.

Myth one: If Congress refuses to
raise the debt ceiling limit, it will trigger a default.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states that Congress
cannot question the validity of public debt.

Originally intended to guarantee debts incurred by the
federal government after the Civil War, the Supreme Court affirmed Section
4's modern meaning in 1935.

Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government
must pay its creditors.

With more than $200 billion in tax revenue per month,
the government can easily cover its bills and should be able to stave off
any negative consequences for our credit rating.

Myth two: The debt ceiling must be
raised to cover spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social
Security.

Medicare and Social Security are not considered
obligated debts under the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, the wording of Section 4 was purposefully
crafted to include the word "debts" but not
"obligations."

The distinction between the two was recognized by the
Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) which ruled that Congress had
the ability to modify Social Security benefits.

Thus, Congress has no legal or constitutional
responsibility to cover the bill for entitlements.

Myth three: The president has the
power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling with powers granted to him by
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

Congress, not the president, is vested with the
authority to raise taxes, borrow money and direct expenses.

Since the debt ceiling is not mentioned in the
Constitution, nor is the president's authority to raise it, only Congress
could permit the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own.

With these three facts in mind,
Congress failing to raise the debt ceiling would trigger major spending cuts so
the government could cover its bills. Dispelling these myths is important if
the American public is to get behind the necessary reductions in spending that
President Obama opposes.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The basis of this comes down to the way treaty law has been interpreted
recently by the courts. This was attempted successfully to a point by the
Clinton administration, which everyone seems to have forgotten, when it came to
the Kyoto Protocol treaty on environmentalism.

See, Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol treaty. But, Bill Clinton was shrewd.
Knowing the treaty would not pass in the Senate for ratification, he signed an
executive order to enforce the provisions of Kyoto until such time it was
ratified by the Senate. I believe a challenge to this in the courts was thrown
out, saying it was perfectly acceptable to do until the treaty got ratified.

Then, it was never submitted for ratification. It took prodding from a state
convention amendment for a Senator to push for a vote on Kyoto. As predicted, it
did not just get rejected, it went down in flames much to the global warming
crowd’s chagrin.

The problem is, in March, this same scenario can be played out.

The United Nations treaty on gun trafficking is coming up for a vote in
March. Hillary Clinton did not sign onto this treaty, but John Kerry will. This
starts the clock ticking on ratification, and allows for the above scenario.
With the stroke of the executive order pen, Barack Obama can commit the
government to following the provisions of the UN treaty until such time it is
ratified or rejected by the Senate. Then, Harry Reid never submits the treaty.
Unlike Kyoto, not enough Republicans are in the Senate to force the vote. Oh,
there also happens to be no time limit between a treaty signature and when it
must be voted upon.

In the end, Barack Obama gets what he wants, a gun ban. Until the treaty is
rejected, it’s legal. Courts have been ruling, wrongly in my opinion, treaties
can supersede the Constitution.

This is how Barack Obama can use an executive order to take away guns.

By the way, that Senator who was able to force the vote on Kyoto? Chuck
Hagel.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B.
Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others
began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists —
understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of
unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the
original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate
exploitation of women.”

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 1/3/13 12:28 PM

The mainstream media will get around to covering abortion this month as the
nation marks 40 years of legalized abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy
via Roe v Wade. Time magazine has released its issue, which comes to a shocking
conclusion.

The cover article
makes the case that the pro-abortion side is losing the abortion debate, saying,
“40 Years Ago, Abortion Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory With Roe v. Wade.
They’re been losing ever since.”The article makes the pro-abortion case that, while
abortion is still legal, it is increasingly difficult to access thanks to the
closing of so many abortion clinics and pro-life laws that help women by giving
them additional information and alternatives.

The
magazine also contains an article from Emily Buchanan of the pro-life
women’s group Susan B. Anthony List that rebuts what has become the modern
talking point for Planned Parenthood and other abortion defenders — that
abortion is about protecting women’s health, some excerpts of which appear
below:

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B.
Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others
began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists —
understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of
unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the
original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate
exploitation of women.”

So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been
suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to
prize abortion as the pathway to equality.

Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject
the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed
that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling
themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.

The past few years have seen the emergence of young leaders like Kristan
Hawkins of Students for Life of America, who is responsible for organizing more
than 675 pro-life groups on college campuses across the nation, and Lila Rose of
Live Action, whose undercover video work has forced the abortion industry to
confront and amend practices it cannot defend, as well as dozens of other future
leaders who have assisted our organization as staff members and interns.

Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that
abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and
human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our
society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are
not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as
theirs.

Our fight transcends elections and legislative battles because our fight is
in our hearts. This is why, 40 years after Roe, our movement is still growing.
We won’t give up; we can’t give up. Our fight is for life.